Maine's Question 1

[Alexander Hamilton]

I had a feeling that those predicting a narrow victory for the Yes side were too stuck in the old model that says a special election hurts the gays...and not giving enough credit to the large organizational advantage of the No side.

I still have that feeling.

I don't think your giving enough credit to the bigots in this country, who, just 20-30 years ago, were trying to vote away the rights of homosexuals.  Unfortunately these people are still around.

I like how Dem4Life is an independent.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

It's a major political issue - how is it not meaningful?

Because there is absolutely no reason for it to be a political issue. But feel free to strawman one out.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

Explain how gay marriage affects anyone?  Seriously?

Go.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

Personal liberty is eminently meaningful. That's the meaning of our nation.

What does this vote have to do at all with personal liberty?

The liberty to define one's own lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with the liberty to live as one chooses: one cannot exist without the other. A self-declared "redneck" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to hunt; this means he has the right to own a gun. A self-professed "homosexual" has the right to call himself such, and, to make true on his word, to fall in love; this means he has the right to marry.

This measure has nothing to do with defining a lifestyle. Nor does marriage have anything do do with falling in love.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This measure has nothing to do with defining a lifestyle. Nor does marriage have anything do do with falling in love.

This affects federal tax benefits, which obviously affect people.  Recognition of gay marriage would remove an implied cultural inferiority that has emotional value.

Essentially everything affects something.  You may personally consider those things unimportant, but why is your opinion -- especially on an issue that does not affect you -- paramount?

So why not focus instead on removing those unnecessary benefits from married people? Why not equality for single people? Seriously? Who cares if it's two people or three people or one person? How should a relationship status play a role in government benefits?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

My social score is actually lower, I just forgot to update and lost the results.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

But they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

Neither do I, depending on who I love.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

But they don't have the right to marry the person they love.

Neither do I, depending on who I love.

Strawman.

Cute, coming from you.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does anyone care about this ballot measure?

Why does everyone care about the New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Elections?

Because they are meaningful. Now answer my damn question.

This is meaningful too.

Explain how this affects anyone.

The now worthless gay people in Maine.

What makes gay people in Maine worthless, or any different in worth to any humans anywhere else?

The fact that they don't have equal rights and liberty to straight people.

How do they not have equal rights and liberties? A gay man has the option to marry women. A straight man has the option to marry women. Same for women. No rights are given to one group over the other.

This argument is almost as stupid as reverse racism. Please, change your social score.

He raises a valid point - one that I essentially made, in different words - gays have the right to get married, they just have to abide by the parameters of the civil contract that the government establishes.

Which, in turn, begs the question: why does the government have any right to set the parameters of any contract between individuals? It doesn't.

Because the government created the contract.

Individuals create contracts.

[Alexander Hamilton]

So why not focus instead on removing those unnecessary benefits from married people?

I would be happy to, but that political position is dead in the water.

Why not equality for single people? Seriously? Who cares if it's two people or three people or one person? How should a relationship status play a role in government benefits?

There are some rational arguments for the financial situation of partnered persons being different from that of non-partnered persons.  But none of the rational arguments apply to separating any such recognition by sexual orientation.  I would love if government got out of the "marriage" business.  But if they won't, and they certainly won't if we keep voting for "marriage = man + woman" resolutions.  Gay marriage not be the ideal situation, but it is more equitable and is less likely to complete eliminate the consideration of alternative arrangements than "marriage = man + woman + state."

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

[Alexander Hamilton]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

[Alexander Hamilton]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

The only marriage I support is no marriage. If Question 1 were about heterosexual marriage I would certainly vote yes, even if it kept gay marriages.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.
[/quote]

Ironically, those same Mormons are now working hard to prevent others from marrying.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

The thing that has the best results is what is just.  What value is principle when it is completely ineffective, and there are benevolent actions that will actually have results?  None; the only result of seeking "higher ideals" is greater suffering and every negative, and just pursuing ideals with no context has no positive means.  You're speaking in mantras.

No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

[Alexander Hamilton]

I'd also like to say that i wish the guy in my screen name was the President. Obama is proving himself to be a puppet of the Christian Establishment.

And you are surprised? Obama was the corporatist candidate. Corporatism and authoritarianism go hand in hand.

[Alexander Hamilton]

No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

What is wrong?  That gay marriage is "more viable"?  An issue that polls in the low twenties (no marriage) in the only poll I've seen is more viable because...gay marriage isn't viable (ignoring all trending) and therefore everything else is automatically more viable than it?  Again, what.

I also don't understand what you mean by "it comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do."  It's like you're regurgitating arbitrary parts of high school essays on the Federalist Papers.

Individuals have the right to dictate their own communal partners and define the terms of their own contracts. When you get the government involved, you are now working in the context of a democratic process. You net results such as this and Prop 8.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Why does polling matter? We should focus on doing what is right and just, not what is "politically viable." Politically viable gave us unions, the Federal Reserve, and the Iraq War.

The thing that has the best results is what is just.  What value is principle when it is completely ineffective, and there are benevolent actions that will actually have results?  None; the only result of seeking "higher ideals" is greater suffering and every negative, and just pursuing ideals with no context has no positive means.  You're speaking in mantras.

No. That is wrong. Seeing as the government IS deciding what is a marriage, and our government is by the people, and the people ultimately side against gay marriage even in California and Maine, I don't see gay marriage as politically viable. Even so, no marriage is more viable and less intrusive. It comes down to whether you want individuals or angry mobs telling you what you can and can not do.

When it comes to the modern Right, what's the difference? The days have long passed when American conservatives were genuinely opposed to mob rule. Today they encourage it.

There are no more American conservatives. Only populists and liberals.

[Alexander Hamilton]

So why focus on gay marriage in that case? Why not polygamy?

OK...I say that there's a solution I'd prefer more, but it's not politically feasible, so you ask me why I don't instead focus on something that polls in the single digits?  What

Exactly. This is a massive strawman on the part of the anti-marriage movement: they wouldn't politically support getting the State out of marriage anyway, as they'd know what it'd lead to. But they'll say it in discourse such as this to neglect charges of statism away from themselves.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, absolutely. The government has no right to prevent polygamous marriage, and the only reason it does so today is because of bigotry against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which you, in all your ecumenical wisdom, ought to be able to understand. There's a reason Utah became a state, and a precondition for it.

And the economic benefits of polygamy would drive most men to get as many wives as possible - we'd wind up bankrupting the government even more!

So? The economic wellbeing of the State is of no concern of mine. If the State goes bankrupt and collapses, so much the better for it.

That sounds more like an anarchist than a libertarian.  So, if you're not a theocrat, you're an anarchist.

Yes, of course. If the American political spectrum weren't so warped, libertarianism would be synonymous with anarchism.

Word.
Every real libertarian on this forum should be seething with rage that Yes on Maine 1 passed.

So you agree that if you're not an anarchist, you have to be a theocrat, and vice versa?

If not a theocrat, then a Giuliani-Nixonian law-and-order fascist, yes.

How was Nixon a fascist?

Wage and price controls, for one. Doesn't make him a bad President, though.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Individuals have the right to dictate their own communal partners and define the terms of their own contracts. When you get the government involved, you are now working in the context of a democratic process. You net results such as this and Prop 8.

Yes...which is why I wish the government would butt out.  But that does not mean I find the arbitrary institutional disclusions of gays a moral non-issue.  To me, it's like being OK with banning blacks from buses because you don't like the government being involved in public transit.

That doesn't answer anything about your ridiculous comments about non-marriage being more "viable," or why we should completely ignore the ends and just pursue our utopian visions even if we know that it will result in more evil.

How can no marriage result in "evil"? You're being ridiculous. Also, your argument about blacks on buses is not analogous to my argument, it would be clearly unconstitutional and violation of equal rights for all citizens.